单选题 It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional. Small wonder. Americans' life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30-minute surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health-care system can cure death—and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of ours.
Death is normal; we are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solved. Shielded by third-party payers from the cost of our care we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it's useless. The most obvious example is latestage cancer care. Physicians—frustrated by their inability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patient—too often offer aggressive treatment far beyond what is scientifically justified.
In 1950, the U. S. spent $12.7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be $1,540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age—say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and infirm "have a duty to die and get out of the way" so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential.
I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78 Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop chairs an Internet start-up in his 80s. These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68-year-old, I wish to age as productively as they have.
Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. As a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and painful. I also know that people in Japan and Sweden, countries that spend far less on medical care, have achieved longer, healthier lives than we have. As a nation we may be overfunding the quest for unlikely cures while underfunding research on humbler therapies that could improve people's lives.

单选题 What is implied in the first sentence?
A. Americans are better prepared for death than other people.
B. Americans enjoy a higher life quality than ever before.
C. Americans are over-confident of their medical technology.
D. Americans take a vain pride in their long life expectancy.

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】推断题。该题问的是篇首第一句的含义，考查的是考生对比较手法的理解能力。这句话说的是：“据说，在英国死亡是迫在眉睫的，在加拿大(死亡)是不可避免的，在加利福尼亚(死亡)是可以选择的。”从这句话中，我们不难看出美国人的骄傲和狂妄，他们认为美国拥有高端的医疗技术，死亡是可以控制的。所以C项是正确的：“美国人对他们的医疗技术过分自信。”A项毫无道理，事实上，美国人比其他国家的人更害怕死亡，所以不惜投入许多金钱，期望医疗技术能延缓他们的生命。B项是将美国人的现状与过去相比，与篇首的比较句没有关系。D项说的是美国人为他们的寿命长而感到骄傲，也是没有理解原话的意思。原句中用了“optional”一词，不是说死亡会迟迟不来，而是说美国的医疗技术如此发达，人们可以选择什么时候死亡。借助医疗技术，人们可以尽可能延长寿命。所以D项不正确。

单选题 The author uses the example of cancer patients to show that ______.
A. medical resources are often wasted
B. doctors are helpless against fatal diseases
C. some treatment are too aggressive
D. medical costs are becoming unaffordable

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】例证题。在第二段中，作者举出晚期癌症患者的例子，指出医生们因无力治好病而沮丧，又担心患者丧失希望，往往采取一些过激的、缺乏科学根据的治疗方法。光看这一句，似乎A、B、C选项都正确。但是，结合文章来看(这篇文章是为了说服人们勇敢地接受死亡这一自然规律)，我们发现它的作用是为了说明人们通常浪费了医疗资源，过度地投入在回天无力的事情上。从这道题中，我们可以学到，论据就是为了证明论点的，文章中的任何一句话都不能孤立地去理解，而应该结合文章大意，结合上下文去理解。所以A项是正确的。B、C项都没有答到点子上。文中并没有提及D项内容，所以是错误的。

单选题 The author's attitude toward Richard Lamm's remark is one of ______.
A. strong disapproval B. reserved consent
C. slight contempt D. enthusiastic support

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】作者态度题十综合理解。该题考查的是作者对于Lamm所说的话的态度。Lamm所说的话也是作者引用的一个论据。Lamm认为老年人有义务死亡，以免挡住(年轻人的)道路。在接下来的一段，作者对于Lamm的观点发表了看法：“I would not go that far.”(我不会那么极端)。接着，作者举出了许多例子，说明老年人也可以活得有生气，还能为社会作贡献。有的考生看到这里就匆匆地选择了A，认为作者极力反对Lamm的观点，这就有点断章取义了。因为在接下来的一段中，作者用“Yet”表示了转折，表述了另外一个角度的意见，即一个社会在这方面(追求高质量的老年生活)的花费是有限的。从作者的论述中我们可以推断出，作者希望人们接受新陈代谢的自然规律，所以在一定程度上与Lamm所提倡的是一致的。所以选B，作者对Lamm的观点基本同意，但有所保留。

单选题 In contrast to the U. S. , Japan and Sweden are funding their medical care ______.
A. more flexibly B. more extravagantly
C. more cautiously D. more reasonably

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】细节题。文中的原话是：I also know that people in Japan and Sweden，countries that spend far less on medical care．have achieved longer，healthier lives than we have. 说明了虽然日本和瑞典在医疗保健上的花费比美国少，但寿命却比美国人长，身体也更健康。接着，作者提出倡议，与其将资金徒劳地花在没有希望的治疗上，还不如投入到较一般的治疗中，以提高人们的生活质量。所以可以推断出，日本和瑞典在医疗保健上的投资更合理。因此选择D。